1 / 36

CPUC Public Agenda 3292 Thursday, April 19, 2012, 9:00 a.m. 505 Van Ness Ave, San Francisco

CPUC Public Agenda 3292 Thursday, April 19, 2012, 9:00 a.m. 505 Van Ness Ave, San Francisco. Commissioners: Michael R. Peevey Timothy Alan Simon Michel Peter Florio Catherine J.K. Sandoval Mark J. Ferron www.cpuc.ca.gov. Public Comment.

jevonte
Download Presentation

CPUC Public Agenda 3292 Thursday, April 19, 2012, 9:00 a.m. 505 Van Ness Ave, San Francisco

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CPUC Public Agenda 3292Thursday, April 19, 2012, 9:00 a.m.505 Van Ness Ave, San Francisco Commissioners: Michael R. Peevey Timothy Alan Simon Michel Peter Florio Catherine J.K. Sandoval Mark J. Ferron www.cpuc.ca.gov

  2. Public Comment Per Resolution ALJ-252, any member of the public who wishes to address the CPUC about matters before the Commission must either sign up at the Commission's webpage section "Public Comment Sign-Up" or with the Public Advisor before the meeting begins. Public speakers must visit the Public Advisors table before the start of the meeting on the day of the Commission Meeting to ask our staff to mark their presence. Once called, each speaker has up to 3 minutes at the discretion of the Commission President, depending on the number of speakers. A sign will be posted when 1 minute remains. A bell will ring when time has expired. Those who sign up after 9:00 a.m. will only have 1 minute. The following items are NOT subject to Public Comment: Item: 28, 34, 36, 39, 40, 41, 43, 49, 50, 52 & 61 All items on the Closed Session Agenda

  3. Public Comment Per Resolution ALJ-252, any member of the public who wishes to address the CPUC about matters before the Commission must either sign up at the Commission's webpage section "Public Comment Sign-Up" or with the Public Advisor before the meeting begins. Public speakers must visit the Public Advisors table before the start of the meeting on the day of the Commission Meeting to ask our staff to mark their presence. Once called, each speaker has up to 2 minutes to address the Commission. A sign will be posted when 1 minute remains. A bell will ring when time has expired. Those who sign up after 9:00 a.m. will only have 1 minute. The following items are NOT subject to Public Comment: Item: 28, 34, 36, 39, 40, 41, 43, 49, 50, 52 & 61 All items on the Closed Session Agenda

  4. Public Comment Per Resolution ALJ-252, any member of the public who wishes to address the CPUC about matters before the Commission must either sign up at the Commission's webpage section "Public Comment Sign-Up" or with the Public Advisor before the meeting begins. Public speakers must visit the Public Advisors table before the start of the meeting on the day of the Commission Meeting to ask our staff to mark their presence. Once called, each speaker has up to 1 minute to address the Commission. A bell will ring when time has expired. The following items are NOT subject to Public Comment: Item: 28, 34, 36, 39, 40, 41, 43, 49, 50, 52 & 61 All items on the Closed Session Agenda

  5. Agenda Changes • Items shown on the Consent Agenda will be taken up and voted on as a group in one of the first items of business of each CPUC meeting. • Items on Today’s Consent Agenda are: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56 & 57 • Any Commissioner, with consent of the other Commissioners, may request an item from the Regular Agenda be moved to the Consent Agenda prior to the meeting. • Items: 61, 65, 66, 73, 81, 84, 86, 96 & 97 from the Regular Agenda have been added to the Consent Agenda. • Any Commissioner may request an item be removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion on the Regular Agenda prior to the meeting. • Item: None have been moved to the Regular Agenda. • Items: 69, 69a, 74, 75, 78, 79, 89, 91, 94 & 95have been withdrawn. • The following items have been held to future Commission Meetings: • Held to 5/10/12: 14, 22, 34, 58, 58a, 59, 59a, 60, 63, 64, 67, 70, 71, 76, 77, 80, 82, 83, 85,87, 88, 90, 92 & 93 • Held to 5/24/12: 17, 62, 62a, 68 & 72

  6. Regular Agenda • Each item on the Regular Agenda (and its alternate if any) will be introduced by the assigned Commissioner or CPUC staff and discussed before it is moved for a vote. • For each agenda item, a summary of the proposed action is included on the agenda; the CPUC’s decision may, however, differ from that proposed. • The complete text of every Proposed Decision or Draft Resolution is available for download on the CPUC’s website: www.cpuc.ca.gov. • Late changes to agenda items are available on the Escutia Table.

  7. Regular Agenda – Energy Orders Item #58 [10792] Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Edison Company's 2012-2014 Demand Response Programs, Activities and Budgets A11-03-001, A11-03-002, A11-03-003 - Related matters. Application of Pacific Gas and Electric Company for Approval of Demand Response Programs, Pilots and Budgets for 2012-2014. Ratesetting Comr. Peevey/Judge Hymes ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- • PROPOSED OUTCOME: • Adopts demand response Programs and Activities for Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E), and Southern California Edison Company (SCE). • Authorizes budgets of $208 million for PG&E, $184 million for SCE, and $64 million for SDG&E. • Closes the proceeding. • ESTIMATED COST: • $457,371,966.

  8. Regular Agenda – Energy Orders Item #58a [11185] ALTERNATE TO ITEM 10792 A11-03-001, A11-03-002, A11-03-003 - Related matters. Application of Pacific Gas and Electric Company for Approval of Demand Response Programs, Pilots and Budgets for 2012-2014. Comr. Ferron --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- • PROPOSED OUTCOME: • There are numerous changes and clarifications throughout the Alternate Proposed Decision (APD). • The APD provides additional policy context in terms of the Demand Response (DR) market, dynamic rates vs. DR price responsive programs, the role that the California Independent Systems Operator intends to play in the DR market going forward, the role of third party aggregators, the need to better integrate DR in the Resource Adequacy market, and how DR might be able to support Renewables Portfolio Standard integration going forward. • The APD clarifies language about DR’s relevance in the loading order. • The APD adds language citing how continuous investment in DR is needed because, unlike conventional generation, DR is non-permanent and requires frequent touch points with the customers to be successful. • ESTIMATED COST: • Total budgets approved are: • Pacific Gas and Electric Company: $187,923,189 in APD (vs. $186,182,650 in PD). • San Diego Gas & Electric Company: $61,322,740 in APD (vs. $63,067,177 in PD). • Southern California Edison Company: $189,026,614 in APD (vs. $186,182,650 in PD).

  9. Regular Agenda – Energy Orders Item #60 [11086] Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, and San Diego Gas & Electric Company’s Electric Long-Term Procurement Plans R10-05-006 Order Instituting Rulemaking to Integrate and Refine Procurement Policies and Consider Long-Term Procurement Plans. Ratesetting Comr. Peevey/Judge Allen ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- • PROPOSED OUTCOME: • Addresses issues in System Track I and Rules Track III of the Long Term Procurement Plan Rulemaking. • Approves a proposed settlement in System Track I and resolves Rules Track III issues including: procurement rules relating to power plants using once-through cooling, evaluating bids between utility-owned and independent generation, utility procurement of greenhouse gas related products, and general procurement oversight rules. • Closes the proceeding. • ESTIMATED COST: • Unknown at this time.

  10. Regular Agenda – Energy Orders Item #63 [11187] Guidance for Investor-Owned Utilities’ on 2013-2014 Energy Efficiency Portfolios and 2012 Marketing, Education, and Outreach R09-11-014 Order Instituting Rulemaking to Examine the Commission's Post-2008 Energy Efficiency Policies, Programs, Evaluation, Measurement, and Verification, and Related Issues. Ratesetting Comr. Ferron/Judge Farrar ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- • PROPOSED OUTCOME: • Gives guidance to the investor owned utilities on their 2013-2014 energy efficiency program applications. • Requires the filing of separate applications for statewide marketing, education and outreach activities for demand side resources. • ESTIMATED COST: • None.

  11. Regular Agenda – Legislative and Other Matters Item #92 [11244] Voice Over Internet Protocol and Internet Protocol Enabled Communications Service SB 1161 (Padilla) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This bill would prohibit the California Public Utilities Commission from regulating Voice over Internet Protocol and Internet Protocol enabled service (IP enabled serviced providers unless expressly provided otherwise in statute). (Legislative Subcommittee Recommendation: __________).

  12. Commissioners’ Reports

  13. Management Reports

  14. Regular Agenda – Management Reports and Resolutions Item #98 [11172] Report and Discussion by Consumer Protection and Safety Division on Recent Safety Program Activities -------------------------------------------------------------------------

  15. Railroad Preemption of Traffic SignalsPreemption Review Project Daren Gilbert Program Manager, Rail Transit and Crossings Branch California Public Utilities Commission April 19, 2012 15

  16. Presentation Overview Explanation of preemption – approaching trains alter (preempt) the normal operation of motor vehicle traffic signals to allow traffic to clear a crossing. Fox River Grove, IL, 1995 bus/train collision, and the FRA Safety Advisory. California Vehicle Code, (CVC) Section 22526(d): A driver of a vehicle shall not enter a railroad or rail transit crossing, notwithstanding any official traffic control device or signal indication to proceed, unless there is sufficient space on the other side of the railroad or rail transit crossing to accommodate the vehicle driven and any railway vehicle, including, but not limited to, a train, trolley, or city transit vehicle. Hazards addressed: Situations where cars violate CVC and are unable to move off of railroad tracks. Hazard mitigations – preemption, others. CPSD rail crossing safety staff activities: Working with railroads, municipalities and consultants: To ensure preemption circuitry is designed, installed, and maintained to function as intended. To identify where preemption circuitry changes or equipment adjustments are needed.

  17. Addressing Queuing Traffic signals with preemption Pre-signals / Queue Cutter DO NOT STOP ON TRACKS sign Hatch / KEEP CLEAR markings Traffic laws and enforcement Relocate the sources of queuing (driveway, bus stop, etc.)

  18. Roadway intersections near crossings present special condition where traffic signals should be considered. Particular concern is vehicles queuing or stopping on the tracks and the possibility that traffic may prevent them from moving off the crossing when a train approaches. Installation of traffic signal equipped with railroad preemption is usually the best solution to clear motorists from the rail crossing. Signalization of Intersections Near Crossings

  19. What is Railroad Preemption? A special control mode in a traffic signal controller designed to start up and clear any vehicular traffic on the roadway approach crossing the tracks on approach of a train Allows only traffic movements that do not conflict with the railroad movement for the duration of the train movement through the crossing.

  20. Fox River Grove, IL -10/25/1995

  21. Crossing graphic for Fox River Grove accident

  22. Fox River Grove Accident Diagram

  23. FOX River Grove, IL collision NTSB Probable Cause: 1 – School bus driver positioned the bus so that it obstructed the track area. 2 – Illinois DOT failed to recognize the short queuing area on Algonquin Road and address it. 3 – Illinois DOT did not recognize the short green signal indication for northbound vehicles to clear the track area before arrival of the train at the crossing. 4 – The School District did not identify route hazards (at a railroad-highway crossing) and did not provide its drivers with alternative instructions for such situations.

  24. FRA Safety Advisory As a result of the Fox River Grove Incident and looking into the future, the FRA in responding to the NTSB issued Safety Advisory 2010-02. It recommends: That States, local highway authorities and railroads conduct comprehensive periodic joint inspections of highway traffic signal pre-emption interconnections. That States, local highway authorities, and railroads install, maintain, and upgrade railroad and highway traffic signal recording devices at crossings with active warning devices that are interconnected with highway traffic signal systems.

  25. Preempted California Crossingsby Railroad

  26. Preempted California Crossingsby Railroad

  27. BNSF - UPRR In compliance with the FRA Safety Advisory, the two largest railroads in California hired Campbell Technology Corporation, experts in Preemption design and evaluation, to conduct safety reviews at all of the BNSF and UPRR preempted crossings in California. BNSF – 109 preempted crossings UPRR – 412 preempted crossings

  28. CPUC –CTC-Railroad Partnership At the request of RCES and local roadway authorities, the Commission’s RCES partnered with CTC and the Railroads to participate in the crossing preemption evaluations in California RCES Engineers are now actively participating at each crossing preemption evaluation

  29. Preemption Time To estimate the preemption time calculate: * Right of way Transfer Time * Queue Clearance * Maximum Preemption Time * Railroad Minimum Warning Time * Advance Preemption Time *Check Gate interaction and Track Clearance Green Time

  30. Preemption Time Right of Way Transfer Time is the maximum amount of time needed for the worst case condition, prior to display of track clearance green interval to drivers waiting on/near the crossing approach. Including: • Reaction time for equipment to acknowledge a request for preemption • Time to allow traffic control signal green to terminate, • Pedestrian walk and clearance, • Yellow change interval, and, • Red clearance.

  31. Preemption Reviews Verify existing equipment and configuration The railroad signal to local agency traffic signal controller and railroad train detection circuit reviewed. Preemption timing sheets verified and reviewed. Check Operation – Field site review completed by a Diagnostic Team consisting of the railroad, its consultant, local agency traffic engineering staff and CPUC RCES engineering representative to test the proper operation of the signalized intersection and clearing of traffic. Final report on each crossing.

  32. Preempted Crossings Approximately 743 Preempted crossings in California Union Pacific Railroad and Burlington Northern Santa Fe initiated a preemption study in April of 2011 to review all of their preempted crossings. 100 crossings have been completed thus far and various others are being scheduled for completion in 2012 These BNSF and UPRR projects will result in ALL of their preempted crossings in CA undergoing a thorough review of preemption as recommended by the FRA Safety Advisory.

  33. Preempted Crossings • RCES is exploring ways to partner with the other CA railroads such as Metrolink and Caltrain to implement preemption reviews on those lines. • Develop a process to assure railroads and local roadway authorities continue ongoing reviews in accordance with the FRA Safety Advisory.

  34. Regular Agenda – Management Reports and Resolutions Item #98 [11172] Report and Discussion by Consumer Protection and Safety Division on Recent Safety Program Activities -------------------------------------------------------------------------

  35. Management Reports

  36. The CPUC Thanks YouFor Attending Today’s Meeting The Public Meeting is adjourned. The next Public Meeting will be: May 10, 2012, at 9:00 a.m. in Fresno, CA

More Related